IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. OF 2019

(Under Rule 4(E) of Bombay High Court Public Interest

Litigations Rules, 2010)

DIST:- UNION

TERRITORY OF

DAMAN AND

DIU

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)...Petitioner

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

VERSUS

1. Administrator of Daman & Diu,

Secretariat Building,

Daman.

2. COLLECTOR, Daman,

Union Territory of Daman and Diu.

3. Coastal Zone Management Authority,

Daman And Diu.

4. Union of India

Through Ministry of Environment and Forest.

TO,

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND OTHER HON’BLE

PUISNE JUDGES OF THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF

JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

THE HUMBLE PETITION

OF PETITIONER

ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT:-

1. The Petitioner has filed present Public Interest Litigation

seeking essentially relief that the construction work which has

been carried out without the permission of the Union Territory

Coastal Zone Management Authority and without following

procedure as given under the Environment Impact

Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2016 is illegal, bad in

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

law and is done as colorable exercise of power by high

ranking officials with pre-determined mind in complete

disregard to the law.

2. Declaration and undertaking by the Petitioner:-

a. The present Petition is being filed by way of Public

Interest Litigation and the Petitioner does not have any

personal interest nor will Petitioner be benefited if the

Petition is allowed. The Petition is being filed in the

interest environment more specifically the Costal

protection as well as the one of the cleanest beaches

that Daman has.

b. That the entire litigation cost, including the Advocate

fees and other charges are being born by the Petitioner.

c. That a thorough research has been conducted in the

matter in the Petition prior to filing this Petition.

d. That to the best of the Petitioners’ knowledge and

research, the issue raised has not been dealt with or

decided, nor any similar or identical Petition filed earlier

by any of them.

e. That the Petitioner has understood that in the course of

hearing of this Petition the Court may require any

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

security to be furnished towards cost or any other

charges and the Petitioner shall have to comply with

such requirement.

f. The Petitioner is a citizen of India and permanently

residing on the above referred address.

3. The relevant and material facts for/to the present

Petition are as set out hereinafter :-

i. Petitioner submits that he is Right to Information as well

as anti-corruption activist and continuously exposing

various illegalities, wrong activity and malafide

committed by the government officers and Government

Departments in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar

Haveli and U.T. of Daman & Diu as well as in other

states since 2007-08.

ii. Petitioner submits that Daman has coastal city and has

coastline of almost 12.5 km. Daman also has 2 natural

beaches namely Devka Beach and Jampore Beach which

also have sand dunes. Daman at few places has rocky

parts of the beach which thrive with the various marine

species. Apart from this at various places beaches are

adjoining to the reserve forests and passes through it.

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

In this manner Daman has rich coastal environment

which has become scarce now days.

iii. Petitioner is also regular visitor to the Daman so as to

enjoy the pleasant beaches of the Daman. However

meanwhile due to heart ailment Petitioner could not visit

the Daman. After much gap approximately in month of

____ 2019, Petitioner visited the Daman beach, he

could not go upto the Devka beach due to the digging

work right on the beach sand. He was utterly shocked

and heartbroken to see the destruction of the beach with

the use of heavy machinery. Petitioner also observed

that the high tide water was coming right at the places

where the heavy machinery was doing digging activities.

At some of places to prevent the high tide water from

coming to the construction place permanent retention

wall were required to be constructed and remaining

places the construction of retention wall was under way.

Petitioner has learnt that said retention wall now will be

constructed through out length so as to restrict the high

tide water from sweeping away the entire road. It was

clearly seen and observed that the high tide waves were

hitting the retention wall wherever constrcted indicating

the high tide line to be much ahead of the retention

walls.

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

iv. Petitioner was shocked, saddened and heartbroken by

the said widespread destruction of the beaches, sand

dunes. On further enquiry he come to know that Daman

administration was constructing the sea facing road on

Devka Beach as well as doing beautification. By no

stretch of imagination the small city of Daman requires

the Sea Front road that too at the cost of destruction of

environment. The authorities have proposed and routed

the said proposal as “Sea front road and

beautification of Devka Beach at Nani Daman km

0/0 to 6/380”. Annexed hereto and marked as

Exhibit “A” is copy of the relevant documents showing

various stages at which the proposal was routed. It is

pertinent to note that though the proposal was put

forward for consideration in may 2018, however until

May 2019 no efforts were made to comply with the

stringent requirements of the law. Petitioner further

submits that its not only simple road but full fledged

construction which involves construction of Gabion Wall,

10.5 meter wide road, side walk way, side drain.

v. Petitioner therefore filed Right to Information Application

dated 03.04.2019. However, the information was not

supplied and hence Petitioner was required to file appeal

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

against the non-supply of the information on

04.06.2019. However, after appeal was file Petitioner

was informed that vide letter dated 12.04.2019 itself

Petitioner was intimated to collect the information.

Petitioner however in the best interest collected the

information. Since the work on the beach was in

progress, Petitioner decided to file the Petition with all

available information. Petitioner humbly submits that the

Respondents be directed to place before this Hon. Court

entire file with true disclosure for perusal.

vi. Petitioner submits that it can be seen from the minutes

of the meeting dated 02.03.2019 of the Daman & Diu

Coastal Zone Management that only in principle approval

has been granted to the said construction. Said

Construction is considered as “CRZ Clearance for the

work of Sea Front Road & Beautification of Devka

Beach at Nani Daman KM 0/0 to 6/380” Annexed

hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is copy of the

minutes of meeting dated 02.03.2019 of the CZMA.

vii. It is pertinent to note that very adjoining there

exisits ____ meter road which is absolutely sufficient for

the purpose of connectivity with only difference that

same is not adjoining to the sea. The residents of

Daman never ever sought the construction of the such

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

kind of sea facing road at the cost of destruction of the

beach itself. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit “C”

is copy of the Tentative map showing proposed road as

well as existing road immediately adjoining to the beach

but not sea-facing.

viii. The Daman & Diu Coastal Zone Management

authority has for the purpose of Granting the in principal

approval has relied upon the clause 8(III)A(iii)(j). For

the sake of convenience said clause is reproduced as

under

“(j) construction of dispensaries , schools,

public rain shelter, community toilets,

bridges, roads, provision of facilities for

water supply, drainage, sewerage,

crematoria, cemeteries and electric sub-

station which are required for the local

inhabitants may be permitted on case to case

basis by CZMA;”

ix. Petitioner submits that thought the caption clause

permits construction of road however same has to be

permitted is same is required for the local

inhabitants. Admittedly none of the local inhabitants

has demanded said road and they already have the

existing road for their daily use. Contrary to this at all

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

the administrative levels this road has been pushed

through by stating that said road is required for the

purpose of increasing the tourism. The clause

mentions it clearly that such kind of project has to be

considered on case to case basis by CZMA. In present

case rather no such application of mind by the

authority considering various aspects. The Authority

simply proceeded to grant “in principal approval” and

on the basis of said in principal approval, work has

been commenced. It is pertinent to note that CZMA

required to grant either approval or reject the same.

The law no-where provides for in-principal approval.

This itself shows that complete non-application of the

mind by the authority. Annexed hereto and marked

as Exhibit “D” is copy of the CRZ Notification of

year 2011.

x. Petitioner also seeks to draw attention of this Hon.

Court towards the letter dated 31.05.2019 wherein

the CZMA has sought compliance of the certain

documents. This indicates that the CZMA authority

presided over by the officers from the very

administration has pre-determined mind to grant

approval to the project under any circumstances and

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

only formality of submission of documents is being

done.

xi. From the document dated 31.05.2019 it can be seen

that CZMA has not even verified that demarcation of the

HTL or LTL coupled with project lay out. Annexed hereto

and marked as Exhibit “E” is copy of letter dated

31.05.2019. Petitioner categorically asserts that the

said road is actually being constructed between high tide

line and low tide line. Petitioner on various occasion has

been to the said site and has visually verified this fact.

Therefore, if at all this project is to be permitted it has

to be one of the kind exceptional case so as to permit

construction between HTL and LTL. This being the case

the construction is definitely either CRZ IA or CRZ IB. In

either case this kind of destructive development is not

permissible. Though the zone actually CRZ IA or CRZ

IB, the authorities with clear malafides and for obvious

extraneous reasons have exercised their powers

contrary to the legislative intent of the Environment

Protection Act, 1986 and the CRZ notifications. The

respondents created farce of CRZ Clearance by making

wrong noting that the area falls under CRZ II and CRZ

III. On this ground alone the “In principle approval” as

granted required to be quashed and set aside. Annexed

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

hereto and marked as Exhibit “F” is copy of the

photographs as captured by the Petitioner showing the

construction of work. Annexed hereto and marked as

Exhibit “G” is copy of the Coastal Map as prepared by

the Respondents. Apart from this at various places

beaches are adjoining to the reserve forests and passes

through it. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit “H”

is copy of the minutes of meeting dated 30.03.2005.

xii. Petitioner also submits that there exist no Coastal

Zone management plan and time and again only Draft

notifications have been issued. Annexed hereto and

marked as Exhibit “I” is copy of the draft notification

as issued in year 2014. Petitioner submits that in year

2017 the timeline to submit the Coastal Zone

Management plan was extended upto 2018. Annexed

hereto and marked as Exhibit “J” is copy of the

extension as granted.

xiii. Petitioner submits that even authority is not sure

as to under which CRZ category the project falls.

Despite this the project has been granted “In principal

approval.” by the CZMA. It is apparent from the

Costal Regulation Zone Notification dated 06.01.2011

that at-least rapid EIA report is required for clearing

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

the permissible activities. Admittedly even said Rapid

EIA has not been conducted. On this ground alone the

so called in principle approval given by the authority

should be quashed and set aside. Though it is the

case of the Petitioner that the comprehensive EIA

would be required nevertheless taken the case as it is

even rapid EIA has not been conducted. This shows

clear non-application of the mind on the part of the

Authorities.

xiv. In the year 2019, Central Government has issued

one more notification i.e. Coastal Regulation Zone

notification, 2018. However even under the said

provisions this kind of constructions are not

permissible. Petitioner however submits that the

notification of year 2011 permitted reclamation only

in exceptional cases. However in notification of year

2019, said clause of “Exceptional cases” has been

completely done away with. In view thereof,

Petitioner is constrained to challenge the CRZ

Notification of year 2015 as ultra vires of

Environment Protection Act. Annexed hereto and

marked as Exhibit “K” is the copy of the CRZ

Notification of year 2019.

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

xv. Petitioner submits that in this peculiar facts and

circumstances he is approaching this Hon. Court so as

to seek appropriate directions for protection of the

environment.

4. Essential disclosure :-Petitioner says and submits that

he has no personal interest and no other interest of

whatsoever nature if the Petition is allowed and Petitioner will

not be benefited in any manner if the writ in the nature of

“Mandamus” is issued by this Hon. Court.

5. Nature and extent of injury caused/

apprehended:-

The coastline of the Daman will undergo extensive and

irreparable damage because of non-compliance with the

statutory requirements.

6. The representation etc. made:-

The Petitioner is filling the Petition in hurry since the

authority themselves are doing the illegality and making

any representation would be empty formality. Even

otherwise lot of time was wasted in even considering the

RTI application of the Petitioner. Considering the day to

day damage caused to coastline, Petitioner is directly

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

approaching this Hon. Court under Art. 226 of the

Constitution of India.

7. Delay, if any, in filing the petition and explanation

thereof:-

1. There is no delay no delay in filing the present

Petition, since authorities are doing illegal

construction upon the coastline. Petitioner says that

delay if any therefore is not deliberate.

8. Documents relied upon:-

As exhibited.

9. Relief(s) prayed for:-

this Hon’ble Court may be pleased

(a) To issue Rule;

(b) This Hon. Court be pleased to quash and set aside

the in principal Approval dated 02.03.2019 under the

guise of provisions of Coastal Regulation Zone, 2011;

(c) This Hon. Court further be pleased to declare that

the commencement of the work without obtaining the

final CRZ clearance and Environment Impact

Assessment is illegal and further be pleased to direct

the Respondents to restore the Devka beach as it was

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

prior to commencement of work pursuant to the

project namely “Sea front road and beautification of

Devka Beach at Nani Daman km 0/0 to 6/380”;

(d) This Hon. Court further be pleased to direct the

Respondents to fix the personal responsibility of all

the concern officials for the gross violation of the

Coastal Regulation Zone and further direct to take

appropriate action in accordance with law for

destruction of the Devka Beach without following the

due process of law as established;

(e) This Hon. Court further be pleased to declare the

Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, dated 18

January 2019 (Annexed as Exhibit “G” to Petition)

more specifically para 5.1.2.(c) as ultra vires to the

provisions of the Environment Proatection Act, 1986;

(f) Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d);

(g) All other reliefs and orders as this Hon'ble

court may deem just, legal and proper;

10. Interim order, if prayed:-

(a) Pending hearing and disposal of the Public Interest

Litigation, this Hon. Court further be pleased to stay

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

the Construction activities carried on the Devka beach

in furtherance of “Sea front road and

beautification of Devka Beach at Nani Daman

km 0/0 to 6/380” project

(b) All other reliefs and orders as this Hon'ble court

may deem just, legal and proper;;

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS AND JUSTICE, THE

PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

PLACE: MUMBAI.

DATE: ( _________________)

Advocate for the Petitioner.

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

VERIFICATION

I, the Petitioner abovenamed do hereby

state on solemn affirmation state and declare that what is

stated in the paragraphs Nos. 1 to _____ are true to my own

knowledge and belief and what is stated in paragraph No., __

to ____ is based on the information and legal advice which I

believe to be true and correct.

Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai )

This __ day of , \ .. Deponent.

Before me.

Explained & Interpreted by me.

Advocate for the Petitioner.

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INEREST LITIGAGTION NO. OF 2019.

DISTRICT: UNION

TERRITORY OF

DAMAN AND DIU

Shri. Jitendra P. Maru, ...Petitioner.

VERSUS

Administrator of Daman, Diu,

& Ors ...Respondents.

Affidavit

I,

the

Petitioner abovenamed, do hereby state and declare on

solemn affirmation as under :-

1. I say that I am the Petitioner in the above Public Interest

Litigation and I am aware of all the facts and

circumstances pertaining to the subject matter of the

Present Public Interest Litigation.

2. I say that I repeat, reiterate and confirm all avernments,

statements and contentions stated and raised by me in

the said Public Interest Litigation Petition and all the

statements and avernments made therein are adopted as

part and parcel of this Affidavit for avoiding repetition.

This Affidavit has been affirmed and executed in support

of the said Public Interest Litigation Petition.

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

3. I say that I have no personal /vested interest in the

subject matter of the present Public Interest Litigation and

I am filling the present Public Interest Litigation for the

interests of the Public at large.

4. I say that, to the best of my knowledge, the issues in the

present Public Interest Litigation has not been decided in

any other Writ Petition.

5. I say that whatever is stated herein above is true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and I

believe the same to be true and correct.

Solemnly Affirmed at Mumbai, )

On this ____ day of July 2019. )

_____________

(Deponent)

Identified by me,

Advocate for Petitioner.

(_________________)

WWW.LIVELAW.IN